Ex Parte Contacts Draw Reprimand Of Judge

A Michigan hearing panel has reprimanded a judge who had been charged with several counts of misconduct

On October 2, 2024, the Grievance Administrator filed a six-count formal complaint against respondent alleging that he committed professional misconduct while he was a judge in the 43rd District Court for the City of Hazel Park. Specifically, Count One alleged that in 2018, respondent improperly coordinated testimony between defendants and law enforcement in a case involving brothers, including ex parte communications and attempts to influence a witness, leading to case dismissals; Count Two alleged that, in 2017, after being overruled and disqualified by a higher court, respondent sent a critical letter to the appellate judge and contacted a prosecutor; Count Three alleged that, in 2016,respondent held a one-sided proceeding without notifying the defense or prosecution, after the alleged victim in a domestic violence case requested lifting a no-contact order; Count Four alleged that, in 2010, during a phone call to inform a defense attorney that court was being cancelled for a snow day, respondent discussed case facts with the defense attorney; Count Five alleged that, in 2015, respondent had a witness testify in a domestic violence case without the prosecutor present, contrary to court rules; and, Count Six alleged that, in 2019, respondent imposed harsh and unusual probation terms and jail time on a first-time DUI offender, raising concerns of excessive punishment.

Findings and sanction

On July 22, 2025, the parties submitted a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5). The stipulation contains respondent’s no contest pleas to the factual allegations in paragraphs 1-3, 4 as amended, 5-7, and 28-31, as well as the allegations of professional misconduct set forth in paragraph 34(j) of the formal complaint. The stipulation further contains the parties’ agreement that the following will be dismissed with prejudice: Counts One and Three through Six of the formal complaint, as well as paragraphs 27, 32-33, 34(a)-(i), and 34(k), as set forth in Count Two of the formal complaint. The stipulation also contains the parties’ agreement that respondent be reprimanded.

The hearing panel has considered the parties’ stipulation and has concluded that it is reasonable and consistent with the goals of these discipline proceedings.

From the Notice of Reprimand

Based upon respondent’s no contest pleas and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent initiated, permitted, or considered ex parte communications, or considered other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding, in violation of Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct 3A(4).

(Mike Frisch)